Slots bill shaping up as bad law, and is based on dishonest rationale

State Government

June 27, 2004|The Morning Call

When negotiations between state legislators and Gov. Ed Rendell for a slot-machine bill wound down last week, Bucks County's Republican Sen. Robert "Tommy" Tomlinson was trying to be optimistic about a final bill being passed. With all sides agreeing on the big issues, the pro-slots senator said, the only real obstacle is the usual anti-gambling group.

We agree with Sen. Tomlinson that those who oppose gambling are a force in Pennsylvania. But we think even better arguments can be made under the headings of good government and the right priorities for the state.

The bill itself is seriously flawed in that it would expand casino-type gambling far beyond the state's established horse tracks. Draft language calls for four or five non-track sites. Philadelphia would get one, and presumably, Pittsburgh another. The casinos would eventually be allowed 5,000 machines each. In addition, there is language permitting smaller resort casinos. They would have up to 500 machines, and play would be limited to hotel guests. You can see this is intended for the Poconos and other resort areas.

Such heavy emphasis on non-track gambling lets down the public in two ways. First, it stampedes across the line of how much officially sanctioned gambling Pennsylvanians will tolerate. The Pennsylvania Lottery is accepted. Betting at horse tracks is accepted. And we believed it was a relatively small step to provide people already at horse tracks another way to waste money. Creating four or five new gambling destinations is a wholesale, not an incremental change, and it is more than we think is wise.

The other dishonesty is that agriculture was the purpose of broaching slot-machine gambling in the first place. Gov. Rendell said Pennsylvania agriculture -- horse and feed farms -- needed thriving tracks to survive themselves. But only 18 percent of the take at the "racinos" will go to horsemen, and that includes race purses. Most of the revenue will go to track owners and the state.

That revenue connection leads to the other big reason to oppose this bill. Legislative leaders said the only way the slots bill will come to a vote this week is in a separate measure on property-tax reduction. The vehicle favored by most in the Legislature relies upon local referendums on school district spending.

This would be bad for public education. Exemptions would be included, but voters already control the local districts through the election of school board members. Referendums would divide communities by pitting parents against non-parents and generation against generation. Add the fact that the timing of referendums and the annual state funding cycle would make planning impossible, and this is too high a price to pay for such a thing as legalized slot machines.

The slot machine idea originally was of a scale that this state could accept. They represented serious and much needed revenue that now goes to neighboring states, and restricting them to race tracks mitigated the negative social consequences. Now gambling has taken over. The Legislature always has had it in its power to give property owners tax relief. Too bad a deal with the devil is the only way it can find the courage to do it.